J. Gagnon, E. Beausoleil, Kyong-Min Son, C. Arguelles, Pierrick Chalaye, Callum N. Johnston
{"title":"什么是民粹主义?谁是民粹主义者?","authors":"J. Gagnon, E. Beausoleil, Kyong-Min Son, C. Arguelles, Pierrick Chalaye, Callum N. Johnston","doi":"10.3167/DT.2018.050201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Both “populism” and “populist” have long been considered ill-defined\nterms, and therefore are regularly misapplied in both scholarly and\npopular discourses.1 This definitional difficulty is exacerbated by the Babelian\nconfusion of voices on populism, where the term’s meaning differs\nwithin and between global regions (e.g. Latin America versus Western Europe);\ntime periods (e.g. 1930s versus the present), and classifications (e.g. left/\nright, authoritarian/libertarian, pluralist/antipluralist, as well as strains\nthat muddy these distinctions such as homonationalism, xenophobic\nfeminism and multicultural neonationalism). While useful efforts have\nbeen made to navigate the vast and heterogeneous conceptual terrain\nof populism,2 they rarely engage with each other. The result is a dizzying\nproliferation of different definitions unaccompanied by an understanding\nas to how they might speak to each other. And this conceptual\nfragmentation reinforces, and is reinforced by, diverging assessments of\npopulism which tend to cast it as either “good” or “bad” for democracy\n(e.g. Dzur and Hendriks 2018; Müller 2015).","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/DT.2018.050201","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is populism? Who is the populist?\",\"authors\":\"J. Gagnon, E. Beausoleil, Kyong-Min Son, C. Arguelles, Pierrick Chalaye, Callum N. Johnston\",\"doi\":\"10.3167/DT.2018.050201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Both “populism” and “populist” have long been considered ill-defined\\nterms, and therefore are regularly misapplied in both scholarly and\\npopular discourses.1 This definitional difficulty is exacerbated by the Babelian\\nconfusion of voices on populism, where the term’s meaning differs\\nwithin and between global regions (e.g. Latin America versus Western Europe);\\ntime periods (e.g. 1930s versus the present), and classifications (e.g. left/\\nright, authoritarian/libertarian, pluralist/antipluralist, as well as strains\\nthat muddy these distinctions such as homonationalism, xenophobic\\nfeminism and multicultural neonationalism). While useful efforts have\\nbeen made to navigate the vast and heterogeneous conceptual terrain\\nof populism,2 they rarely engage with each other. The result is a dizzying\\nproliferation of different definitions unaccompanied by an understanding\\nas to how they might speak to each other. And this conceptual\\nfragmentation reinforces, and is reinforced by, diverging assessments of\\npopulism which tend to cast it as either “good” or “bad” for democracy\\n(e.g. Dzur and Hendriks 2018; Müller 2015).\",\"PeriodicalId\":42255,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/DT.2018.050201\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050201\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Both “populism” and “populist” have long been considered ill-defined
terms, and therefore are regularly misapplied in both scholarly and
popular discourses.1 This definitional difficulty is exacerbated by the Babelian
confusion of voices on populism, where the term’s meaning differs
within and between global regions (e.g. Latin America versus Western Europe);
time periods (e.g. 1930s versus the present), and classifications (e.g. left/
right, authoritarian/libertarian, pluralist/antipluralist, as well as strains
that muddy these distinctions such as homonationalism, xenophobic
feminism and multicultural neonationalism). While useful efforts have
been made to navigate the vast and heterogeneous conceptual terrain
of populism,2 they rarely engage with each other. The result is a dizzying
proliferation of different definitions unaccompanied by an understanding
as to how they might speak to each other. And this conceptual
fragmentation reinforces, and is reinforced by, diverging assessments of
populism which tend to cast it as either “good” or “bad” for democracy
(e.g. Dzur and Hendriks 2018; Müller 2015).
期刊介绍:
Democratic Theory is a peer-reviewed journal published and distributed by Berghahn. It encourages philosophical and interdisciplinary contributions that critically explore democratic theory—in all its forms. Spanning a range of views, the journal offers a cross-disciplinary forum for diverse theoretical questions to be put forward and systematically examined. It advances non-Western as well as Western ideas and is actively based on the premise that there are many forms of democracies and many types of democrats. As a forum for debate, the journal challenges theorists to ask and answer the perennial questions that plague the field of democratization studies: Why is democracy so prominent in the world today? What is the meaning of democracy? Will democracy continue to expand? Are current forms of democracy sufficient to give voice to “the people” in an increasingly fragmented and divided world? Who leads in democracy? What types of non-Western democratic theories are there? Should democrats always defend democracy? Should democrats be fearful of de-democratization, post-democracies, and the rise of hybridized regimes?